In network administration circles, few topics spark as much debate as whether servers should use DHCP or static IP addressing. While DHCP offers convenience, static IPs provide stability - especially crucial for critical infrastructure.

When evaluating addressing methods, consider these technical factors:

// Example DHCP reservation in ISC DHCP server
host webserver {
  hardware ethernet 00:0c:29:aa:bb:cc;
  fixed-address 192.168.1.10;
  option host-name "web01";
}

Even when using DHCP for servers, most admins implement reservations to maintain consistency. This hybrid approach combines DHCP management with static-like behavior.

Consider these common server roles and their addressing needs:

# Network configuration using static IP (Linux example)
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
    address 192.168.1.100
    netmask 255.255.255.0
    gateway 192.168.1.1
    dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4

Proper documentation solves many addressing management challenges:

{
  "server_name": "db01",
  "ip_address": "192.168.1.50",
  "purpose": "Primary database server",
  "responsible_admin": "jdoe@company.com",
  "last_updated": "2023-11-15"
}

While DHCP lease renewal typically doesn't impact modern servers, consider these factors:

• DNS propagation delays with DHCP changes
• Certificate validation issues with IP changes
• Monitoring system dependencies on static addresses

For teams wanting both management convenience and stability:

# PowerShell script to verify IP consistency
Test-Connection -TargetName "server01" -Ping -Count 1 | 
Where-Object { $_.Address -ne "192.168.1.20" } | 
Send-MailMessage -To "admin@domain.com" -Subject "IP Mismatch Alert"

In small network environments (typically under 50 nodes), the server addressing debate often comes down to this fundamental tradeoff:

• DHCP proponents argue for centralized management and IP consistency through reservations
• Static advocates emphasize predictable endpoints for services and management interfaces

When evaluating addressing methods for servers, these technical factors should be considered:

For those considering DHCP with reservations, here's a sample ISC DHCP server configuration:

host webserver {
    hardware ethernet 00:1a:2b:3c:4d:5e;
    fixed-address 192.168.1.10;
    option host-name "web01";
}

host dbserver {
    hardware ethernet 00:2b:3c:4d:5e:6f;
    fixed-address 192.168.1.20;
    option host-name "db01";
}

Static IPs prove superior in these scenarios:

• Critical infrastructure services (DNS, DHCP servers themselves)
• Systems requiring IP-based authentication
• Environments with strict compliance requirements

Many administrators implement a hybrid model:

1. Configure static IPs on servers
2. Use DHCP reservations matching the static configuration
3. Document all assignments in IPAM tools

Example PowerShell script to verify static configuration matches DHCP reservations:

$servers = @("web01","db01")
foreach ($server in $servers) {
    $dhcpReservation = Get-DhcpServerv4Reservation -ComputerName "dhcp01" | Where-Object HostName -eq $server
    $serverIP = (Test-Connection -ComputerName $server -Count 1).Address
    if ($dhcpReservation.IPAddress -ne $serverIP) {
        Write-Warning "Mismatch detected for $server"
    }
}

For small networks, these management factors tip the scales:

• Static IPs require minimal documentation (simple spreadsheet suffices)
• No single point of failure (unlike DHCP server dependency)
• Easier troubleshooting with predictable addresses

For most small networks, static IP assignment for servers provides the most reliable foundation. The management overhead argument loses merit in environments where:

• Server count is low (<20)
• Network changes are infrequent
• High availability is critical

Document your addressing scheme regardless of method chosen. Here's a sample YAML template for IP documentation:

network: 192.168.1.0/24
servers:
  - name: web01
    ip: 192.168.1.10
    mac: 00:1a:2b:3c:4d:5e
    services: [http, https]
  - name: db01
    ip: 192.168.1.20
    mac: 00:2b:3c:4d:5e:6f
    services: [mysql]